There's no question that climate change is real, the question is whether catastrophic man-made global warming which policy can improve is real, so honesty and understanding would be a good start, wouldn't it?

The whole debate is so asinine, so many layers deep in fallaces, religious hysteria, and corruption, that discussions like the author's strike me as just another example of popular delusions and the madness of crowds.

The author is absolutely right to say: "Depending on the timeframe, it is possible that if no global action is taken to limit carbon dioxide emissions, the impacts of climate change may become irreversible."
I'm not sure how much the general public understands the gravity of the situation, of how close we are to the tipping point that will send us into runaway global warming, an ice free Earth and sealevels rising by 75 metres. Such a sea level rise would not occur this century, but 3-5 metres is possible with horrendous ramifications, not least the flooding of major cities as well as inundation of major deltas and low-lying countries like Bangladesh with flow on effects with respect to food production.
I have been in a state of rage ever since seeing Media Watch on ABC-TV on Monday in which Jonathan Holmes revealed how the 'Shock Jocks' on commercial radio are treating climate change and deriding any attempts to deal with it. Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, says such people (the deniers) should be accused of treason. They are the ones influencing public opinion which will in turn put pressure on government not to introduce effective action such as a carbon tax. And, in turn, that will mean climate change and the "storms of my grandchildren" - not just James Hansen's - will destroy civilisation as we know it.

You have forgotten a fourth greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

However to me the critical issue is how much each of the greenhouse gases contributes to the greenhouse gas effect and how much of that is caused by nature and how much by man.

The best evidence that I have found so far is water 95%, CO2 3.5%, N20 1% and methane 0.5%. Nature accounts for 99.7% of the greenhouse gases and man 0.3% so why bother with a carbon tax.

What is noteworthy is that when Abbott raised this issue on 15 March 2011 he was immediately villified by Labor politicians. Yet two weeks later Gillard says we need to use facts not fear when discussing climate change.

The hypocrisy is breath taking.

EQ, you say:

>> The best evidence that I have found so far is water 95%, CO2 3.5%, N20 1% and methane 0.5%. Nature accounts for 99.7% of the greenhouse gases and man 0.3% <<

Would you mind telling us where you found this "best evidence"?
Perhaps you could just provide an internet link, thanks.

poppingperish "They (deniers, presumably)are the ones influencing public opinion"

What? You can't get a skeptic (denier!) on the ABC if you try, the ABC are like religious evangelists in their across the board condemnation of any other view but alarmism, and regularly roll out all the usual alarmist figureheads to support that, Garnault, Flannery, Karolly etc.

if you post a comment on the ABC questioning Alarmism, it is never printed .. you can flame with impunity if you are an alarmist.

There are $ Billions spent worldwide on Alarmism, books by the dozen (against half a dozen total on skepticism) that get a great run on the ABC radio and TV and the Fairfax media. There are probably half a dozen or less conservative journalists who question CO2 as a problem.

no one "denies" the climate changes, what is questioned is CO2 being a problem, and whether a tax will have any effect, even if it is.

"I have been in a state of rage ever since seeing Media Watch on ABC-TV on Monday in which Jonathan Holmes revealed how the 'Shock Jocks' yada yada"

I'm not surprised that MediaWatch has now also become a forum for alarmism.

You "rage" at your fellow Australians, but blame who you are told to, by the ABC? Did you know about skeptics (deniers) before the ABC told you?

You clearly have a problem with folks of a different opinion and are concerned that after all the above money spent and careful coaching of the public, and all the government scare campaigns and bile, that a very small group of skeptics can "control" public thinking.

Don't underestimate the average Australian's potential to spot bullshyte and bullshyters. Your own BS detector might need to be looked at. Shock Jocks merely reflect what their callers tell them, it's a forum for people who are otherwise not heard, certainly not on "your" ABC eh?

most Australians do not believe taxing them for CO2 emissions, while the rest of the world goes on with progress and development will do any more than make a few alarmists happy

The author covers many points in his article but one theme, I suppose, is that the message the switched-on, intelligent, aware, elite want to convey concerning climate change is not getting through to the grubby, ill-informed, skeptical masses (which includes myself). Further, the media (of which I am also a member) is getting in the way, with this habit of pointing out that its not all straight forward.

In fact, most scare stories run through a series of phases. One could be called "experts declare crisis is at hand and public believes them".. a couple of steps further along, it is "experts declare crisis is still coming, but public starts switching off". The crisis never arrives of course.

In this case the switch off occured during the so called climategate scandals, when even the public at large heard that the senior scientists involved in the climate warming had not been behaving as they should. This was followed by the Copenhagen meeting when, again, the bulk of the public (but not some activists) realised that no international agreement was ever going to occur.

Now they are being asked to pay a new tax which is obviously not going to make any difference, irrespective of what the science may or may not say. I would take issue with many of the author's comments on the science, but he overlooks the basic point that this tax was obviously going to run into substantial opposition on logical grounds. The general public, after all, are not activists, nor are they so easily led - particulalry when they have to di into their own pockets.

Dear Amicus
It is to its great credit that the ABC does not give a run to the high profile deniers although one would have thought Tony Abbott in his wavering, non-scientific, irresponsible stance on the issue gets enough air-time on the ABC.

popperinpresh .. so that's what you want?

An ABC that only has the side of "your" truth and beliefs .. even if the majority of Australians do not believe in your alarmism, you still feel they are not entitled to some objectivity from the ABC and at least equal time?

So you're happy when they tell you because of AGw there will be less snow and rain, and when they tell you now there will be more snow and rain .. you don't find any issue with that?

Regardless of people's beliefs, right or wrong, it is not the place of the ABC to be "activist" central for a particular side or other.. not in politics or science.

The bias of the ABC will be its downfall, and whil ethey have a lot of good programming I find their political and alarmist leaning is unacceptable

Climate fluctuations have been happening since the Earth cooled down. That's Nature & that's just the way it is. The climate changes & nature adapts, if a part of nature can't, or doesn't, adapt then it dies out. That's how nature works. When the Ice ages hit Europe humans shifted. Those that didn't move either adapted to the cold or died out. Most died out causing another bottle neck for Humans & the demise of the Neanderthal, Proto human (pioneer man) & Denisovans.

Modern humans have to do the same. Adapt or die. Not PC but such is life.

To days panic is caused by those who have a vested interest in Real Estate & big Business. They don't want their prime, expensive land & holdings being made worthless. They don't want to change. It puts their whole Financial Economy out of wack for them. So in order to make LOTS of money for themselves, create a panic. They don't want to get people, or show people, how to adapt & accept the change they want them to get frightened & confused so they can make lots of money out of it.

Governments take advantage of the fear being caused by the misinformation & spin being generated by the Greenies, Media & Government Biased people, etc.

A further point, made by other posters, is that you will never get more support on the media than the climate change story has now. Stories supporting the view than industrial activity has contributed to climate change are legion. Stories supporting the "denier" side are few and far between - admittedly they have become more frequent of late, but that was off a low base.

If global warmers cannot make the public believe in their case, and in the carbon tax, in the current climate of very substantial press suppoort, then they have problems indeed.

Ted, there can be absolutely no doubt that this is a highly contentious, divisive and vexatious debate. There is really only one way to settle this and that is to put together the two distinct scientific perspectives and let them sort out just how dangerous or urgent any action might be. Is this so much to ask?

One of the key reasons skepticism is growing is because middle of the road, pragmatic people are asking why this is being refused. Not only is it being refused, those who are asking for this are denigrated, abused and marginalized as deniers and flat earthers. We also see a monumental effort being expended by the advocacy block, including MSM and public broadcasters, to “explain” to us numb nuts why we should accept only AGW science.

The more the AGW advocacy block resists such a simple request as “let the scientists sort it out”, the more resistance and skepticism there will be. When the government tries to bulldoze a CO2 Tax through parliament, the more resistance and skepticism there will be. What is it you don’t understand about cause and effect?

Today, we saw thousands of Australians converge on the heartland of the Urban Elites, Parliament House in Canberra, some to protest and some to support the CO2 Tax proposals.

Firstly, there were those in opposition. These are Australians who have worked all their lives and paid taxes, have survived births, marriages and deaths, they have had mortgages, bought houses, paid their superannuation, educated their children, and some may have served in our defense forces. They say No to this tax.

Then the government funded, pro-tax supporters comprising an American Green Peace representative, an Urban Elite activist from Canberra, and several spotty faced members of the 12th form “twittertariat”, none of whom I suspect have ever lodged a tax return.

The Getup activists had the “front” to describe the Tax opposition as “Loopy”, “right wing extremist” and “carbon tsars”.

Our media has stood by, it has watched, it has listened and as always, it has failed to inject any moral outrage at the abuse.

>> Our media has stood by, it has watched, it has listened and as always, it has failed to inject any moral outrage at the abuse. <<

Spindoc, the media shock-jocks are having a field day, despite assertions to the contrary:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3169309.htm

Spindoc, you don't have to cry crocodile tears here - the Bolts, Ackermans and Jones' will do it for you - that you can be sure of.

Btw, can you back up EQ's "best evidence" figures? They are completely out of whack to all the primary sources I get data from.

I don't believe in a carbon tax because it's only an encouragement, aimed ultimately at manufacturing, to produce cleaner forms of industrial practice and commodification. There is no encouragement for the consumer to simply consume "less" (from electricity to commestables), to possess less, to indulge less (holidays, sporting and entertainment fixtures, travel), to reproduce less, to have smaller houses and altogether to live "much" more modestly. Massive campaigns by governments encouraging populations to adopt such lifestyle changes, at home and at the workplace (in many cases they could become one), would have far more impact on reducing carbon emissions than imposing a tokenesque tax, with offsets, that will do nothing to change habits. But of course living more modestly would send our economies into spin-dives! We can only stay economically-vibrant by maintaining our conspicuous consumption--it'd be heaven if it wasn't such a crock!
And that is the awful dilemma confronting capitalist societies: consume less and die economically, or keep consuming and die ecologically. It's as stark as that! It's pure fantasy supposing we can maintain (in fact grow) consumer capitalism while reducing emissions.
We need to reduce emissions "and" cut consumption, and that's the death knell for capitalism!
But it won't happen; too many vested interests, too much money at stake, and altogether too many creature comforts to give up.
A carbon tax is the first feint at the fantasy of clean technologies and production and reduced emissions in a paradigm of endless economic growth.
It's about time the dim-witted masses woke up, but even those who aren't minimifidianists are deluded. They're far too optimistic!

"But the trigger for the electorate making the best informed decision rests with science and the news media to shape, and to not follow, public opinion on action for climate change."

One can hear the note of exasperation: "Jeez, just tell the people what they ought to think, why don't you?" Then we can get on with imposing new laws, extracting new taxes, rewarding the scientists for their cooperation and providing the media with juicy new scare stories for another ten years or so. What a shame that the actual global temperature -- you know, that thing we're all supposed to be panicking about -- has been flat for fifteen years. But what the hell -- make enough noise and perhaps nobody will notice.

bonmot, I think you missed the point about the media, not to worry, you can always read it again when you have the time.

As far a backing up EQ's figures, sorry, I don't do science, I leave that to the scientists.

Squeers
You seem to be missing the point that the purpose of human action in general, and economic activity in particular, is to satisfy human wants. If people *wanted* to restrict their consumption, it would be no objection that such was bad for economic growth.

The exhortations of the new puritans remind me of the ascetisism of the early Christian church. The pleasures of consumption are immoral. Presumably we should live in a hut in a clearing in the woods, mortify our body for the good our soul, and live on water of the pure well.

The point is, people *don't want* to live in dimly-lit rooms without electrical appliances, stop going places for their holidays, and spend their leisure time recycling plastic bottles for their sins, as the modern ascetics urge on them. On the contrary, people want to live full, healthy lives, have families, have nice houses, eat nice food, and see the world!

Your idea that the state should "encourage" (what's that supposed to mean? people not to consume so much has it back-to-front.
a) Government is far more wasteful of resources than ordinary people, they are in no position to preach, in case you haven't noticed, and
b) government is supposed to be the servant, not the master of the people, remember?
c) no-one has established any reason why they shouldn't, apart from by ASSUMING an ugly amalgam of Malthusian/Marxian fallacies that consumption and capitalism are immoral.

It is nothing but pious hypocrisy to look down on everyone in the world for their desire to enjoy life, urge for policies to restrict them - while all the while yourself enjoying a first world lifestyle by virtue of the capitalism and consumption that you criticise. If it's irredeemable, and you think carbon is a pollutant, stop consuming goods mass produced using fossil fuels!

Whatever you lot think of the carbon tax, consumption or capitalism, the reality is we have exceeded the biocapacity of the Earth and we have to reduce our consumption, stabilise population and move away from fossil fuels until we get back to within the carrying capacity of the Earth. Climate change is but one manifestation of the fact that we are in 'overshoot'. As for the people demonstrating today against the carbon tax outside Parliament House, all I can say is that you are making the world for my children and grandchildren unliveable.

Hurrah

Finally, at least someone has begun to scientifically analyze the problem, and to define it in terms of risk.

Hurrah

Risk is basically a product of likelihood and consequence.

http://www.scu.edu.au/risk_management/index.php/4/

We know the probable consequence of worldwide climate change.

What is not certain is the likelihood that it is occurring, or could occur.

Without knowing likelihood, then the overall risk cannot be properly estimated.

We need more facts about likelihood.

What is a cause for alarm, is if the majority of the public (and members of government) do not know enough about science to understand basic climatology.

That is not necessarily a fault of the public or members of government. It is primarily a fault of our education systems that have failed to educate the public and members of government in basic science.

"the reality is we have exceeded the biocapacity of the Earth and we have to reduce our consumption, stabilise population"

The reality is you are somehow of the opinion we have exceeded the etc etc .. of the etc etc .. why do you think that?

people have thought that for hundreds of years, and still we go on and on .. and will continue to .. berating people here in Australia will not stop all the developing countries having as many kids as they can, and reaching for as much progress as they can get their hands on .. and they will not stop because of some hand-wringing Australians who live a good life tell them they cannot have the same.

"you are making the world for my children and grandchildren unliveable"

don't have children .. end of problem for you popnperish

the media in Australia has done no favors for the AGW cause by being so outrageously biased, nor do the various lobby groups, climate clubs, activist movements do more than prove they are alarmist and anti progress.

I love Getups attempt now to silence Alan Jones, this is excellent as it will focus everyone on the petty minded little Hitlers that most activist really are .. just in kniptions that no one is doing what they are told!

honestly some of you are so far up the activist tree you can't see the ground or the fact that the average Australian, taxpayer, does not agree .. and the tax and compensate sounds a lot like, bait and switch .. from the ALP, famous for waste is going to come temperature reduction .. no, just more waste

"We know the probable consequence of worldwide climate change."

Yes? Go ahead, tell us what they are and how you know.

Peter Hume:
<You seem to be missing the point that the purpose of human action in general, and economic activity in particular, is to satisfy human wants. If people *wanted* to restrict their consumption, it would be no objection that such was bad for economic growth>

It would be so nice if for once you addressed something I actually said, rather than something you "inferred".

But look, I agree with you in part, I know I sound like a puritan, but I'm not; I love my creature comforts but I'm a realist.

I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms, that "the purpose of human action in general, and economic activity in particular, is to satisfy human wants".
You "infer" this degraded idea of humanity from observing this catered reality that encourages it. But capitalism is hardly calculated to cast humanity in its most favourable light. Not only are "we" omnivores in terms of our palates, we are endlessly adaptable overall, and this has proved to be our evolutionary strength (and the planet's undoing)
Human beings are actually idealistic in the extreme; conspicuous consumption is born of torpor, "boredom is the want of self-reliance".

And then you drift off into your tawdry refrain, which you impute to me; your logical "inference" that collectivist that I am, I favour big government, the primal enemy!
Just as you deny the evidence of your own senses--that a degraded environment is unsustaining regardless of innovation--you also deny your own protection, the succour of society, which has protected "us" from the brutalities of nature since time immemorial. We are social beasts! we prosper by working together and adapting to the exigencies of happenstance, or at least that's what we ought to do, if only we weren't addicted to hierarchies.
You haven't even thought your utopia sufficiently through to see that genuine free markets lead to concentrations of wealth and power and exploitation and mercenary armies etc. etc.. Or perhaps you see yourself as a fat chieftain presiding over so much human chaos..

Hmm. You disagree that the purpose of human action is to satisfy human wants. So what they really want is not to satisfy their wants, but something else? Then aren't they just purposing to satisfy that other want?

Just because people are idealistic, or omnivores, doesn't mean they don't want to satisfy their wants. Actually the distinction between material and ideal wants is really moot, because ultimately it's a subjective satisfaction that material goods give us.

You've obviously formed the view that something dire is about to happen to the planet. We are going to hell in a handcart. However people have been thinking that way for millenia. Every now and then it breaks out in an epidemic of mass hysteria. The Christians in particular took up this belief with relish. During the middle ages, great crowds would turn out for public self-flagellation parades, flogging themselves til they were bleeding. But the predicted cataclysms never came.

"But" you might say "This time we really are going to hell in a handcart."

I don't think there's any more basis to the modern environmental movement's fears that our lives are unsustainable, than to the mediaeval anchorite's. If the Aborigines of 6,000 years ago had adopted the same Malthusian theory - simple, persuasive, and wrong - they would have come to the same conclusions. "Australia could never support a population of 22,000,000. There's only a finite number of caves! What deluded fanatic could deny that? Our population growth is unsustainable!"

Peter Hume.
“Go ahead, tell us what they are and how you know.”

“Warmer temperatures are causing changes in the hydrological cycle at regional and global scales, including decreases in the amount of water stored as ice in most of the world’s glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice; decreasing snow cover and earlier snow melt; and changes in rainfall patterns. These changes affect the incidence and severity of drought and floods and the availability of water, which in turn present challenges for many aspects of human society and industry (e.g. agriculture, rural economies, insurance, water security and food security). Sea level rise due to losses from ice stores and thermal expansion is another consequence of climate change that will have an increasing impact on human settlements and infrastructure.

Increasing temperatures also affect biological systems. There is evidence of shifts in the range of plant and animal species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in species composition and abundance, and changes in the timing of many life-cycle events such as flowering and migration. Changes such as these will affect many of our managed ecosystems (particularly agriculture and forestry) and biodiversity.

Many of these impacts, especially when combined, are likely to cause increasing pressure on our resources and industries, and possibly on our social systems and health.”

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/effects/effects.htm

I would take out words such as “are”, and replace them with words such as “could”

All the volcanoes in the world could blow up at once, and the consequences would be catastrophic.

But what is the likelihood of this occurring?

Similarly, the consequences of climate change would be moderate to catastrophic.

That is known, but it is not clear what is the likelihood of climate change occurring.

It is hypocritical of Jonathan Holmes to accuse commercial radio shock jocks of being biased against anthropogenic global warming, when the ABC routinely censors out anti-AGW stories from its news and current affairs programs.

For example, has anyone ever heard Deborah Cameron or Robyn Williams interview scientists who do not believe in AGW?

The number of anti-AGW scientists appearing on Tony Jones' Lateline program or Kerry O'Brien's 7.30 Report were few and far between.

Who can recall a more vicious interview than that conducted by Tony Jones when he interviewed Martin Durkin, producer of the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Actually Raycom, the ABC has had many 'notable' sceptics appear - Bob Carter, David Evans, Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton readily come to mind, there are others.

Commercial media shock-jocks only spruik the denialist meme because it raises controversy, ratings and advertising dollars. This is bad in itself but also says a lot about their listeners.

Alan Jones et al wouldn't have a clue about the science - they have an ideological agenda and push their audience to frenzied response, as we have just witnessed in Canberra. Just brilliant.

For a more mature response:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/clearing-the-air-20110323-1c6nq.html

Note the comments by John Gummer.

Bonmot -
Actually those skeptics you mention all appeared on the ABC program Counterpoint, which was started in reaction to complaints that the ABC was a bunch of lefties. I also appeared (spoke) on the program, and the presenters commented to me at the time that it was a skeptical "island".

Sorry but there is very little question that a straight count of media items for and against would greatly favour the global warming side, but it goes deeper than that as that article you cite shows.

For that article speaks approvingly of Chinese efforts. Howevever, although the Chinese have set up heaps of wind turbines very few are actually connected to the grid. The generators are legally obliged to build them but the networks are not legally obliged to connect them so they don't - even Garnaut recently acknowledged there were problems in this regard.

I very strongly suspect that the reduction in emission intensity referred to by the article is calculated by installed capacity and ignores the reality of unconnected wind farms. In any case, they are just Chinese Government figures. Yet the article writer simply repeats this stuff, without any qualification.. should be at least an acknowledgement of problems.

Perhaps those in favour of a carbon dioxide tax could explain why we need to reduce CO2 levels in atmosphere. Is there any evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing adverse climate changes? How do we know that those adverse climate changes are not due to other local and regional factors such as deforestation, urban development, desertification processes and the like?

It seems to me that Dr Roger Pielke Sr has it about right. He acknowledges that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be a factor, but that observed local and regional climate changes are much more likely to result from land-use factors, and/or poorly understood natural factors.

The whole climate system is incredibly complex and there is much we don't know about it.

Given the above, I find it hard to understand why we would impose a "Carbon Tax" that is certain to increase the cost of living, damage whole industries, cause the loss of jobs. All for what?

The grossly bias ABC would not even need to interview those with enough brains to see fraud working out before their own eyes. All they would have to do is to be honest enough to interview Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others who have shown to be totally fraudulent and false prophets. Oh that's right there is a thousand and one reasons why they have got so many predictions wrong when it comes to snow, rain, drought etc. The pathetic national broadcasters will only pick up on the one out of ten predictions that these clowns make that somehow they guess right. The ABC/SBS are far more bias and fraudulent than all the shock jocks put together. Only the leftist academic elite disagree despite facts staring them in the face.

Graeme Kraehe's speech to the National Press Club, and as reported in the OZ should be read by everyone and most importantly the decision makers in the idiot run Labour Party.

Not only did they get in with a fraud against the people of Australia they have the temerity/ignorance to compound it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/bluescope-steel-chairman-graham-kraehe-steps-up-attack-on-carbon-tax/story-e6frg98x-1226026126777

There you go Curmudgeon, you’re doing it again – distorting and misrepresenting the truth. Intentionally?

>> Actually those skeptics you mention all appeared on the ABC program Counterpoint, which was started in reaction to complaints that the ABC was a bunch of lefties. I also appeared (spoke) on the program, and the presenters commented to me at the time that it was a skeptical "island". <<

I note you’re not averse to blowing your own trumpet either – Is that some kind of appeal to “authority”?

You conveniently ‘forget Lateline, The Drum, Unleashed, Lateline Business, Radio National Breakfast, Robyn Williams Science Show (yes raycom, its true) etc. You can do some very simple fact checking yourself Curmudgeon - Google, you may have heard of it.

>> there is very little question that a straight count of media items for and against would greatly favour the global warming side <<

Well duh … perhaps that’s because the weight of evidence and the vast majority of climate scientists, national academies and scientific organisations far outweigh the contrarians.

Oh wait, I get it - you want to make out that the science is 50/50 undecided.

>> For that article speaks approvingly of Chinese efforts. Howevever, although the Chinese blah blah blah <<

Dumb it down, ignore and spin it all you like, curmudgeon. The fact is that the Chinese are doing far more than you are prepared to admit. Ok, I know you only like focussing on wind (as you do) but guess what – the Chinese are into other stuff too.

Hey, tell you what – since you are a (self)acclaimed science writer and ‘journalist extraordinaire’ with (un)qualifications, do some real investigative reporting and get back to us, rather than just bang-on about your “very strongly suspected” assertions.

Be warned, there are some very well-credentialed persons (Aussies included) who have a more professional understanding of “Chinese Government figures” than you would ever have. In a word, stop blowing smoke-screens.

Thank you Bonmont - the ranks of the reasonable and INFORMED contributor have been thinned, therefore, to read your knowledgeable posts is always a relief.

I still don't understand what is so difficult, even for those without a science background, to grasp that investing in clean renewable energy and, in Australia's case, use our plentiful Gas reserves until the new technologies become efficient, is such a difficult prospect.

Do we need to source power from polluting systems, in the short (coal) or long term (nuclear)?

Short answer, no.

Only those with vested interests and they are huge (oil, coal, nuclear) and are still in receipt of government subsidies have reason and the financial might to conduct a campaign against more efficient and clean technologies. And look at those who fall for the propaganda - numerous on a supposedly 'balanced' OLO.

I laugh when people suggest that more carbon dioxide is not harmful. In the short term it will suit lifeforms that thrive on carbon dioxide (that does not necessarily include mammals - look at previous climate types throughout Earth's history - some life forms do better than others on different atmosphere mixes).

And an excess of greenhouse gases? One need look no further than our sister planet Venus.

Thanks Ammonite for adding some sense to this whole debate which, on this Forum, has been woefully inadequate. People only need to appreciate two things: that Arrhenius found that carbon dioxide had a greenhouse effect, i.e. it trapped heat, and that Keeling measured atmospheric carbon dioxide from the top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii for decades and found levels rising. Today's news is that the past year's Arctic ice has been the equal lowest on record - further ice loss will lead to amplification of warming. Should it go so high as to release much of the methane in the tundra and oceans, we really face runaway warming and rising sealevels. Where do 100 million Bangladeshis go? Where do 100 million Indians in low-lying areas go? Similarly, 300 million Chinese? We're facing a crisis and we need to deal with it and the first step in Australia is accepting a carbon tax with good grace.

"I still don't understand what is so difficult, even for those without a science background, to grasp that investing in clean renewable energy and, in Australia's case, use our plentiful Gas reserves until the new technologies become efficient, is such a difficult prospect."

Ammonite, there is no documented scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused any measurable global warming. (In the unlikely event that you know of such evidence, then please table it for all to see.)

Hence there is no scientific or economic justification for introducing a carbon tax , or any CO2 emission reduction measures for that matter.

How you can support the crazy proposition of phasing out efficient, low-cost coal-derived electricity generation with unreliable, inefficient wind-driven energy generation that is five times more costly and with unreliable, inefficient solar power generation that is at least 10 times more costly, is a complete mystery. The substitution of gas-fired for coal-fired generation would not reduce CO2 emissions substantially

popnperish

Thank you.

>> first step in Australia is accepting a carbon tax with good grace <<

"good grace" - not words we hear from any pollies (or the self righteous).

A carbon tax is merely a start. Investment in a varied raft of alternative clean technologies is the path that requires development and investment - not better ways to sequester nuclear waste or excess carbon dioxide - what a waste of taxpayers money should we continue with this thinly veiled attempt to prop up dinosaur tech AKA fossil fuels.

Why the hysteria over carbon tax but not a whimper about government welfare for dino-tech?

Ted: you may be logical in your argument and you are right as far as you go with your facts but there are too many gaps in what you know for you to draw any sensible logical conclusion. Your known world is skimpy on known data: the Arrehenius effect is real but falls off with increasing CO2 and the known association between CO2 and Temperature is over only a short time-frame. It is only an association over the limited time range and there is no evidence for a causal relationship. There are much better predictors of T which are more accurate over longer time frames including the last 100 years. Yes CO2 is definitely rising and human activity has a lot to do with this but CO2 is a plantlife-promoting gas and would not be harmful to land animals at even 20x the current concentration. A tax on carbon will do zippity-do and have many negative impacts. These include not just negative impacts on the Australian economy driving jobs off-shore but negative impacts on the environment.

We need to tread more lightly on this earth but acting like lemmings wont achieve that. PS: As a scientist I am shocked but never surprised by the spruiking from established science bodies such as CSIRO and IPCC and the top-ranked science journals.

megatherium: "PS: As a scientist I am shocked but never surprised by the spruiking from established science bodies such as CSIRO and IPCC and the top-ranked science journals."

Scientists know the difference between a scientific body (institution, academy, organisation, etc) and the IPCC.
You clearly do not.

Btw
"Your known world is skimpy on known data: the Arrehenius effect is real but falls off with increasing CO2 and the known association between CO2 and Temperature is over only a short time-frame."

These are not the words of a real scientist. They are certainly not the words of any 'climate scientist'.